About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
in afghanistan. fourthly, a plan of a special envoy -- appointment of a special envoy. when you make these recommendations, are you saying we're not curly undertaking any of them or do you see some of them as an expansion of what we are doing? or as i was in before, more of a focused approach? >> sir, i served in iraq and afghanistan. you see again and again, usaid, the state department, having difficulties. it when i started working on yemen, it is a familiar situation to me, although, it is not iraq and afghanistan. it is focused on working with local partners that may or may not work in the areas we are mostly concerned with. it is overly centralized, very focused on process and sort of the factions that in the national capital. i cannot take with the political opposition is. that is the political opposition we need to be worried about. but we do not have a good understanding of the human terrain. and iraq, could almost happen by accident. -- it on this happen by accident. i think most of our human terrain is probably focused on the counter-terrorism mission. it is not about the h
have expanded radically with involvement in afghanistan and iraq. as we will hear, the u.s. as crated a police force in iraq that may number as many as 400,000 personnel. the goal of the u.s.-led nato training effort is at 157,000 police and the cost of this training program to the u.s. alone is about $1 billion per month. today, police assistance programs in the government are in multibillion-dollar effort led by the departments of defense and the department state but involving a number of other federal agencies. as programs have grown in size and cost, they also grow in kind. as you saw from the exhibition here on the screen, policing around the world is heavily impacted by history, culture, legal systems, and level of development. police forces differ markedly, so do they differ by agency and the country in which they work in. today, we have assembled a panel of very distinguished experts to discuss the various approaches that the u.s. government takes towards police training in foreign countries. you have the bad reviews for our speakers, so i will not do that. the speakers will c
it comes to discussing the merits of continuing our efforts in afghanistan, the republicans clamor to defend it despite our fiscal mess. i want to remind my republican friends the situation we are in now is not new. throughout history from rome to the ottoman empire to the soviet union the over extension of military and protracted struggles in foreign countries has crippled empires. some historians have credited ronald reagan for the soviet union's collapse but what really bankrupted the soviet union was its wars, just like us, they paid a crushing price both financially and morally in afghanistan. overextending geopolitically comes at a cost over time in any nation that thinks otherwise is setting itself up to repeat the mistakes of the past. as of today, the united states has spent more than 2 1/2 times the percentage of g.d.p. on afghanistan that the -- than the soviet union spent on its g.d.p. during its nine-year war in afghanistan. public polls are clear, americans know the cost of the war in afghanistan is unsustainable and want us to withdraw as soon as possible. when it co
strikes into afghanistan. we had the somalia situation, the bosnian war. we also had the rise of china. and in our industry, we have the rise of satellite services to the consumer. during the clinton the administration, i bought my first satellite dish for direct tv services. by the end of the decade, it is the same. to represent the clinton administration, we have two gentleman. richard was the assistant director for aeronautics and space -- in space. we also have the stephen moran. he was a policy adviser in the white house. once of caveat. -- one small caveat. steve has to take a phone call at a specific time. depending on how richard goes, we may have him just by himself. >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here and to echo what mark said, to listen to this fascinating story as it on schools across time, i think clearly one of the themes we are hearing which i am sure will continue with the other speakers, is that although the administration's change in focus sometimes significantly, we have some very stable thames that are running through this story, and the kennedys administrati
. caller: donald trump wants to set went to iraq and afghanistan because they were oil-rich nations. we won the war. i don't think and buying debt these days. host: about what the question that those did contribute to the problems we are having right now. guest: everything did continue. the question is what percentage. i would disagree saying the president has tremendous leverage. he has no leverage. the democrats and the republicans and congress are going to make this deal. one or both of them are going to leave town and dump it on his lap. the poling is really unhelpful, often ends in these things. on one hand they want cuts and spending. they an over 60% want the capital plan. the president is appearing more favorable than congress. the president always does. the president's rating have been going down dramatically. because of that. because the president doesn't feel comfortable, they don't want this issue to come up again until 2012. they don't want to have this again until 2012. they want to talk about other things. we have this situation now where this debate has paralyzed the country
-- the other factor is that we are now drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way
but other nations throughout the world. we have officers deployed in afghanistan and iraq and several other countries throughout the world to do just that, to train and to build up that capacity. if your feelings are that we are not doing enough, please give me the information because we're very interested in that type of build up of capacity-building said that it will help protect your homeland and our homeland also. we would very much -- we would be very much interested in that. on the screen and intrusiveness, one of the things you would be interested in is that everything and anything we do within dhs and certainly cdp is an entity within dhs, the civil rights and civil liberties, but we're -- that reviews every activity that we undertake, that we're planning to undertake, and that we are looking to move toward, to ensure that what which is that when we do take actions, we take into account the civil rights and civil liberties that are of the highest trenches of the secretary and all of us that have historically worked this type of effort. the amount of equipment out there is tremendous
's watched did that occur? under whose watch did we have wars in afghanistan that we started? under his watch, the economy faltered that we had to rescue it from going off of a cliff. republicans are equally responsible if not more responsible than democrats for the situation we are in now. host: when the democrats had control, why didn't they raise taxes? guest: i agreed that raising taxes on people making over $250,000 was a good idea. obama introduced a budget that called for that. by the end of 200010, -- 2010, the tax cuts were going to expire. there was a situation where the economy could get even worse. we will not extend a tax cuts for the middle class. if you do that, extend it for the rich. -- and he said, i will sacrifice to reach a compromise. he has shown that willingness many times over. host: republican line, for lauderdale florida. caller: i am very fearful of something going on with the politics of the united states into the discussion going on now. i see the democratic party developing what i call. you elect me, and i will get other people's money and take care of your probl
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8